The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below acquitted the defendant of the charges of this case even though the defendant committed larceny as stated in the facts charged of this case in light of the following: the photograph of the defendant's room, clothes, etc. located in the defendant's dwelling (hereinafter "the photograph of this case") is admissible as evidence in a situation in which the investigative agency recognizes the necessity and urgency of preservation of evidence; even if the necessity and urgency of preservation of evidence are not recognized, since the defendant's wife's consent was obtained and taken, and thus, it is admitted as a voluntary investigation. Thus, the photograph of this case is identical to the color and shape of the cane, burg, burg, clothes, and clothes stored in the CCTV of this case. The court below acquitted the defendant of this case, since the defendant committed larceny as stated in the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, which affected

2. Determination

A. On July 3, 2013, around 13:04, the Defendant: (a) laid down the victim E, I, and J around the Busan Scki in the instant case, the cosmetics of an amount equivalent to KRW 100,000 at the market price on the ordinary level; (b) the clothing of an amount equivalent to KRW 50,000 at the market price; and (c) the selective compensation with a bank of an amount equivalent to KRW 100,000 at the market price (hereinafter “the instant selective compensation”); and (d) stolen the instant alternative compensation by citing the delivery of the neighboring selective delivery as the instant alternative compensation.

B. The court below held that the photograph of this case presented as evidence was taken without the consent of the defendant, and it cannot be acknowledged that there was a need and urgency for the preservation of evidence since considerable time has elapsed since it was taken after the crime. Even if the consent of F, which is the defendant's wife, was obtained, the admissibility of evidence cannot be recognized unless the defendant consented, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.